Abstract
Fish consumption preferences are affected by individuals’ socioeconomic characteristics. The aims of the present paper were (i) to obtain information on fish consumption level and frequency; (ii) to investigate the associations between the socioeconomic characteristics of consumers and their preferences; and (iii) to examine the influence of determinants on fish consumption. Data were gathered through a questionnaire completed by a total of 127 randomly selected individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds from the Antakya, Turkey. The average consumption was found to be 2.98 kg/person/year for fish. Anchovies, gilt-head sea bream, and sea bass were reported as the most consumed three species, respectively. Significant differences in fish consumption were found among age groups, gender groups, and education groups, as well as between marital statuses. A majority of the consumers eat fish once a month throughout the year or only during the winter months. Fish consumption level and frequency were significantly positively correlated with education (p<0.01), income (p<0.05) and total meat consumption (p<0.01). The stepwise multiple regression model explained 41.7% (p<0.01) of the total variance for fish consumption. The amount and frequency of the consumption in the region, which is very far below the world and Turkey average especially for lower socioeconomic groups and for less-consumed fish species, can be increased by certain policies, such as training, advertising and different marketing strategies. Moreover, consumption should be distributed equally throughout the year instead of consuming only in certain seasons.
fish; consumer; consumption; economic; preference
1 Introduction
Fish is one of most important animal source of food for a healthy diet. It is rich in
amino acids, unsaturated fatty acids, vitamins, and trace metals. Furthermore, it is
easy to digest due to lack of connective tissue (Burger et al., 1999Burger, J., Stephens, W. L., Jr., Boring, C. S., Kuklinski, M.,
Gibbons, J. W., & Gochfeld, M. (1999). Factors in exposure assessment:
ethnic and socioeconomic differences in fishing and consumption of fish caught
along the Savannah River. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 427-438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00418.x.
PMid:10765415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.19...
; Kızılaslan &
Nalıncı, 2013Kızılaslan, H., & Nalıncı, S. (2013). The fish meat consumption
habits of households and the factors affecting their fish meat consumption in
the province of amasya. Gaziosmanpaşa Bilimsel Araştırma Dergisi, 5,
61-75.; Oğuzhan et al.,
2009Oğuzhan, P., Angiş, S., & Atamanalp, M. (2009). A research on
the habits fish products consumption of consumers determination in Erzurum. In
Proceedings of the XV. National Fisheries Symposium, Rize,
Turkey.; Turan et al., 2006Turan, H., Kaya, Y., & Sönmez, G. (2006). Position in human
health and food value of fish meat. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
23, 505-508.).
Several researchers have investigated the nutritional value of fish and its
importance in human diet from various perspectives. Some studies revealed that fish
consumption helps preventing cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure,
cholesterol, Alzheimer’s disease, and various types of cancer (Barberger-Gateau et al., 2002Barberger-Gateau, P., Letenneur, L., Deschamps, V., Pérès, K.,
Dartigues, J. F., & Renaud, S. (2002). Fish, meat, and risk of dementia:
cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 325, 932-933.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.932. PMid:12399342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.9...
; McNaughton et al., 2008McNaughton, S. A., Ball, K., Mishra, G. D., & Crawford, D. A.
(2008). Dietary patterns of adolescents and risk of obesity and hypertension.
The Journal of Nutrition, 138(2), 364-370. PMid:18203905.; Pieniak et al., 2008Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F., Brunsø, K., & De
Henauw, S. (2008). Fish consumption and its motives in households with versus
without self-reported medical history of CVD: a consumer survey from five
European countries. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-306. PMid:18783593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-30...
; Turan et al.,
2006Turan, H., Kaya, Y., & Sönmez, G. (2006). Position in human
health and food value of fish meat. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
23, 505-508.; Verbeke & Vackier,
2005Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of
fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite,
44(1), 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006.
PMid:15604034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.0...
).
It is a well-known fact that the production of fish and fisheries worldwide is
approximately 154 million tons per year, and their consumption is 18.5 per capita
per year. Turkey has a crucial potential in terms of fishery products due to its
lakes, dams, and rivers and also because it is surrounded by sea on three sides.
Having 8300 km of shoreline and more than 1.5 million hectares of inland water,
Turkey’s consumption of fish and seafood is lower than the world average
consumption, 8.2 kg per capita per year (Aydın et
al., 2011Aydın, H., Dilek, M. K., & Aydın, K. (2011). Trends in fish and
fishery products consumption in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 11(3), 499-506.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.0318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.03...
; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2013Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO (2013,
Jun 14). Statistical databases. Retrieved from
http://faostat3.fao.org
http://faostat3.fao.org...
). Studies conducted in different
regions of Turkey showed that fish consumption is between 5.06 and 13.41 kg per
capita per year (Cevger et al., 2008Cevger, Y., Aral, Y., Demir, P., & Sarıözkan, S. (2008). The
situation of animal products consumption and consumer preferences among intern
students at the Ankara University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. Ankara
Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 55, 189-194.; Erdal & Esengün, 2008Erdal, G., & Esengün, K. (2008). The analysis of the factors
affecting fish consumption in Tokat Province by logit model, E.U. Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 25, 203-209.; Hatırlı et al., 2007Hatırlı, S. A., Öztürk, E., & Aktaş, A. R. (2007). An analysis
of demand of red meat, fish and chicken using full demand system approach.
Journal of Suleyman Demirel University Institue of Social Sciences, 6,
211-221.; Karakaş, 2010Karakaş, G. (2010). A research on the determination of factors
affecting of consumer decisions on meat and meat products in urban area of Tokat
province (Master’s Thesis). Gaziosmanpasa University, Institute of Life
Sciences, Turkey.; Karakuş et
al., 2008Karakuş, K., Aygün, T., & Alarslan, E. (2008). Consumption
habits of meat in center town of Gaziantep Province. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi,
Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(2), 113-120.; Kızılaslan & Nalıncı,
2013Kızılaslan, H., & Nalıncı, S. (2013). The fish meat consumption
habits of households and the factors affecting their fish meat consumption in
the province of amasya. Gaziosmanpaşa Bilimsel Araştırma Dergisi, 5,
61-75.; Oğuzhan et al., 2009Oğuzhan, P., Angiş, S., & Atamanalp, M. (2009). A research on
the habits fish products consumption of consumers determination in Erzurum. In
Proceedings of the XV. National Fisheries Symposium, Rize,
Turkey.).
Additionally, local studies in Turkey, except for Çolakoğlu et al. (2006)Çolakoğlu, F. A., İşmen, A., Özen, Ö., Çakır, F., Yığın, Ç., &
Ormancı, H. B. (2006). The evaluation of fish consumption in Çanakkale, E.U.
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 23(3), 387-392., also show that fish consumption in Turkey is
far below the world and EU average consumption. Aydın et al. (2011)Aydın, H., Dilek, M. K., & Aydın, K. (2011). Trends in fish and
fishery products consumption in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 11(3), 499-506.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.0318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.03...
reported that fish and fishery product consumption
in Turkey steadily increased from 1994 to 2006. Can
et al. (2012)Can, M. F., Serpin, D., & Can, M. F. (2012). The current
situation of small scale fisheries in İskenderun Bay: İskenderun, Arsuz and
Konacik. Atatürk University Journal of Veterinary Science, 7(3),
167-175. found that an increase in and/or maintenance of the level
of fish consumption will lead to a rise in production and have a positive effect on
employment and exports.
Fish consumption, frequency, and preferences are affected by consumers’ geographic,
social, and cultural characteristics (Burger et
al., 1999Burger, J., Stephens, W. L., Jr., Boring, C. S., Kuklinski, M.,
Gibbons, J. W., & Gochfeld, M. (1999). Factors in exposure assessment:
ethnic and socioeconomic differences in fishing and consumption of fish caught
along the Savannah River. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 427-438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00418.x.
PMid:10765415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.19...
; Pieniak et al., 2011Pieniak, Z., Kołodziejczyk, M., Kowrygo, B., & Verbeke, W.
(2011). Consumption patterns and labelling of fish and fishery products in
Poland after the EU accession. Food Control, 22(6), 843-850.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.09.022.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.201...
;
Verbeke & Vackier, 2005Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of
fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite,
44(1), 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006.
PMid:15604034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.0...
). It is
known that food preferences are also affected by a number of sensory (taste, smell,
texture etc…) and non-sensory factors (behavior, beliefs, personal characteristics,
risk perception, etc…) (Honkanen et al.,
2005Honkanen, P., Olsen, S. O., & Verplanken, B. (2005). Intention
to consume seafood—the importance of habit. Appetite, 45(2), 161-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.04.005. PMid:16011859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.0...
). In Turkey, fish is mostly consumed fresh, while in other
countries, it is generally consumed processed (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO (2013,
Jun 14). Statistical databases. Retrieved from
http://faostat3.fao.org
http://faostat3.fao.org...
). Fish
consumption figures in Turkey may significantly vary between the coastal and inland
regions. Antakya is a province that reflects the social, economic, and cultural
status of the Middle East and Turkey, with its multi-cultural ethnic structure and
geographic location in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (Doğruel & Leman, 2009Doğruel, F., & Leman, J. (2009). ‘Conduct’ and ‘Counter-conduct’
on the southern border of Turkey: Multicultural Antakya. Middle Eastern Studies,
45(4), 593-610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00263200903009650.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00263200903009...
).
To our knowledge, there are no studies on the factors affecting fish consumption preferences in that region. The aims of the present paper were (i) to obtain information on fish consumption level and frequency; (ii) to investigate the associations between the socioeconomic characteristics of consumers and their preferences; and (iii) to examine the influence of determinants on fish consumption. It is believed that the results of this research will assist stakeholders in the decision-making process regarding the amount of production, product diversity, and sales policies, and it can also contribute to nutrition policies in both regional and national scales.
2 Material and methods
2.1 Data collection
Primary data were gathered through a questionnaire answered by 127 randomly
selected individuals that have different socio-cultural and socio-economic
backgrounds and are from Antakya, Turkey, a medium-sized city located in the
Mediterranean region of south–central Turkey (36°15’N, 36°08’E), near the border
with Syria. It has a multi-ethnic and multicultural population (Doğruel & Leman, 2009Doğruel, F., & Leman, J. (2009). ‘Conduct’ and ‘Counter-conduct’
on the southern border of Turkey: Multicultural Antakya. Middle Eastern Studies,
45(4), 593-610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00263200903009650.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00263200903009...
). The minimum
number of sample size for this study was calculated according to the following
assumptions; expected fish consumption rate of 91%, obtained from pre-tested
questionnaires; sampling error of 5%; and 95% confidence interval (Ören & Biçkes, 2011Ören, K., & Biçkes, M. (2011). Effects of personality traits on
entrepreneurship potential: A study on higher education students in Nevşehir.
The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 16(3),
67-86.; Rodriguez del Aguila & Gonzalez-Ramirez,
2013Rodriguez del Águila, M. M., & González-Ramírez, A. R. (2013).
Sample size calculation. Allergologia et immunopathologia, 42(5), 485-492.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aller.2013.03.008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aller.2013.0...
). Data collection began in February 2012 and continued until the
end of May 2012. Prior to the start of the field research, the questionnaire was
pre-tested on consumers for appropriate changes if necessary (Verbeke & Viaene, 1999Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Beliefs, attitude and
behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a
consumer survey. Food Quality and Preference, 10(6), 437-445.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)...
).
2.2 Data evaluation
To calculate annual fish consumption for each respondent, 22 of the most commonly
consumed fish species were determined using pre-tested questionnaires.
Afterwards, the questionnaires on annual fish consumption were answered. Fish
consumption frequency was measured using a five-point category scale and coded
in descending order as follows: (I) more than once a week, (II) once a week,
(III) more than once a month (two or three times), (IV) once a month, and (V)
more than once a year (Pieniak et al.,
2011Pieniak, Z., Kołodziejczyk, M., Kowrygo, B., & Verbeke, W.
(2011). Consumption patterns and labelling of fish and fishery products in
Poland after the EU accession. Food Control, 22(6), 843-850.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.09.022.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.201...
). Consumers’ annual consumption levels were divided into
subgroups according to their age, gender, marital status, profession, education
level, and income level. The subgroups’ consumption levels were compared to each
other.
2.3 Statistical analysis
Scatter diagrams were used to investigate the possible relationship between
variables. The relationship between the consumers’ socioeconomic characteristics
and fish consumption levels and frequency were analyzed using correlation
coefficients. The Fisher's exact test (Chi-square) was used to verify possible
associations between the consumers’ characteristics and fish consumption habits
(Can, 2014Can, M. F. (2014). A socio-economic analysis of small ruminant
breeders’ membership relations and organizational effectiveness. Ankara
Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 61, 119-124.; Can & Altuğ, 2014Can, M. F., & Altuğ, N. (2014). Socioeconomic implications of
biosecurity practices in small-scale dairy farms. The Veterinary Quarterly,
34(2), 67-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2014.951130.
PMid:25174643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2014....
). Multiple linear regression (MLR)
was used to examine the influence of determinants on fish consumption. In this
study, fish consumption level was selected as the dependent variable. Age of
consumer, income level, total meat consumption (except for fish), the total
number of fish species consumed by the responents, and the consumer gender (used
as a dummy variable) were selected as the independent candidate variables.
Stepwise procedures were used and a model was constructed. Stepwise regression
procedures have been used to identify only the predictive attributes that
significantly improve the regression at given level. This method is explained as
a combination of forward selection and backward elimination procedures (Draper & Smith, 1998Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1998). Selecting the “Best”
Regression Equation. In N. R. Draper & H. Smith, Applied Regression Analysis
(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118625590.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118625590...
; Qiu et al., 2010Qiu, Y., Fu, B., Wang, J., Chen, L., Meng, Q., & Zhang, Y.
(2010). Spatial prediction of soil moisture content using multiple-linear
regressions in a gully catchment of the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Arid
Environments, 74(2), 208-220.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.08.003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.200...
). In the present study,
the linear relationship between each dependent and independent variable taken
into account was examined using scatter diagrams. Autocorrelation and
multicollinearity were examined by Durbin-Watson statistics and Variance
Inflation Factors (VIF), respectively. In order to reduce the influence of
extreme values and make the distribution closer to the normal distribution, a
logarithmic transformation (using log10) was applied to all continuous
variables. The MLR can be formulated as follows (Equation 1),
where: Y is the dependent variable, X is the independent or regressor variable, k
is the number of independent variables, β is the constant and subsequent β are
the coefficients, and Ɛ is a term that includes the effects of unmodelled
sources of variability that affect the dependent variable (Agha & Alnahhal, 2012Agha, S. R., & Alnahhal, M. J. (2012). Neural network and
multiple linear regression to predict school children dimensions for ergonomic
school furniture design. Applied Ergonomics, 43(6), 979-984.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.01.007. PMid:22365329
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012....
).
The final dependent and independent variables are as follows (Equation 2):
where: Y is the fish consumption level (kg/year), X1 is the total mumber of fish species consumed by the individuals (number), and X2 is the age of consumers (year).
3 Results and discussion
In this study, the respondents’ average fish consumption was 2.98 kg/year. This is equivalent to 13% of the 22.9 kg, which was found to be the respondents’ total annual meat consumption (19.92 kg is other types of meat and 2.98 kg is fish meat). Annual fish consumption levels according to the amount and number are shown in Table 1. Anchovies, gilt-head sea bream, and sea bass were reported as the three most consumed and preferred species, respectively. The five most frequently consumed fish species accounted for 76% of total consumption. Only twelve respondents (9% of the total respondents) reported that they had never ate fish and fish products.
Annual fish consumption considering the most commonly consumed species in the province of Antakya.
Table 2 shows the respondents’ annual fish consumption levels (kg/year) according to their age, gender, marital status, profession, education level, and income level. Significant differences in fish consumption were found between the age, gender, and education groups, as well as between marital statuses. Consumption level between students and young people was almost two times greater than that of the other professions and age groups, respectively. Table 2 shows that there were no significant differences in consumption level between profession and income groups. Females’ annual fish consumption level was 1.19 kg more than that of males’ consumption level.
Annual fish consumption levels according to different socioeconomic subgroups in the province of Antakya.
Certain consumers’ habits and preferences are summarized in Table 3. As a result of this study, it was detected that health concerns play an important role in the selection of fish consumption. The majority of the consumers eat fish once a month throughout the year or during the winter only. Baking was indicated as the preferred method of preparing fish.
Significant associations between the respondents’ socioeconomic factors and consumption preferences are presented in Table 4. There was a significant relationship between education level and “the primary reason for fish consumption”; education level and “fish preparation method”; gender and “fish preparation method”; and income level and “preferred type of fish”. There was no association between “primary reason for fish consumption”, “preferred type of fish”, and “fish preparation method” with the other consumers’ characteristics and preferences (Chi-square).
Correlations between consumers’ characteristics and fish consumption values are summarized in Table 5. There were significant and positive correlations between consumption values and education (p<0.01), income (p<0.05), and total meat consumption (except for fish) (p<0.01). The correlation matrix of the variables involved, the model, and regression model results are given in Table 6 and 7. Regression analysis indicated that the model does not show major autocorrelation (see Durbin-Watson statistics) and multicollinearity (see VIF statistics) problems. As a result of regression analysis, it was found that 41.7% (p<0.01) of the total variance were explained by the model. The total number of fish species consumed by the responents and the age of the consumers were found to be significant predictors for fish consumption. The following MLR formula was obtained (Equation 3):
Consumers’ specific opinions about fish consumption and prices, as well as the primary issues and problems observed at the fish markets are given in Figure 1. According to the majority of the respondents, public fish consumption was quite low. In retail fish markets, the most important factor to be improved is hygiene. It was found that if production is increased and public awareness and perception is changed in a positive way, this will lead to increased fish consumption. According to a small number of respondents (12%), believe that inspections by government agencies and monetary penalties concerning retail fish markets are adequate. However, 73% and 15% of the respondents would like to increase inspections by government agencies and monetary penalties, respectively.
Consumers’ opinions about fish consumption, prices, and related problems in the province of Antakya.
Although Antakya is a coastal city, its fish consumption is very low. The reason for
this may be that red meat plays an important role in the dietary habits in the
Middle East and Turkey. It is known that people prefer chicken to white meat, and
that bovine meat is the preferred type of red meat in Turkey (Cevger et al., 2008Cevger, Y., Aral, Y., Demir, P., & Sarıözkan, S. (2008). The
situation of animal products consumption and consumer preferences among intern
students at the Ankara University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. Ankara
Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 55, 189-194.; Karakuş
et al., 2008Karakuş, K., Aygün, T., & Alarslan, E. (2008). Consumption
habits of meat in center town of Gaziantep Province. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi,
Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(2), 113-120.; Şeker et al.,
2011Şeker, İ., Özen, A., Güler, H., Şeker, P., & Özden, İ. (2011).
Red meat consumption behavior in Elazığ and consumers’ opinion in animal welfare
summary. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi, 17(4),
543-550.). Fish consumption levels in Antakya, 8.16 g/day, is quite below the
average in Turkey (~19 g/day), the EU (~48 g/day), and the world (~36 g/day). Fish
consumption level accounts approximately for 13%, 27%, 23%, and 31% of the meat
consumption in Antakya, Turkey, the EU, and the world, respectively (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2013Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO (2013,
Jun 14). Statistical databases. Retrieved from
http://faostat3.fao.org
http://faostat3.fao.org...
). Due to the fact that shellfish consumption is very low in
Turkey, only fresh water and saltwater fish were considered in the present study.
Furthermore, according to 77% of the respondents in this study, fish consumption in
Turkey is insufficient. In Turkey, 32% of the rural and urban dwellers reported to
consume fish and fishery products (Aydın et al.,
2011Aydın, H., Dilek, M. K., & Aydın, K. (2011). Trends in fish and
fishery products consumption in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 11(3), 499-506.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.0318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.03...
). Studies carried out in different parts of Turkey demonstrate that
6% of the consumers in Erzurum (Oğuzhan et al.,
2009)Oğuzhan, P., Angiş, S., & Atamanalp, M. (2009). A research on
the habits fish products consumption of consumers determination in Erzurum. In
Proceedings of the XV. National Fisheries Symposium, Rize,
Turkey., 9% of the consumers in Gaziantep (Karakuş et al., 2008Karakuş, K., Aygün, T., & Alarslan, E. (2008). Consumption
habits of meat in center town of Gaziantep Province. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi,
Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(2), 113-120.), and 15% of the consumers in Elazığ (Şeker et al., 2011Şeker, İ., Özen, A., Güler, H., Şeker, P., & Özden, İ. (2011).
Red meat consumption behavior in Elazığ and consumers’ opinion in animal welfare
summary. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi, 17(4),
543-550.) prefer fish. In the
present study, only 9% of the respondents reported that they never consume fish
because of the taste, smell and bones. Cevger et
al. (2008)Cevger, Y., Aral, Y., Demir, P., & Sarıözkan, S. (2008). The
situation of animal products consumption and consumer preferences among intern
students at the Ankara University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. Ankara
Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 55, 189-194. found that twenty-two percent of the students at Ankara
University do not consume any fish at all, and the daily average fish consumption is
15 g. The present study has revealed that consumption levels of single individuals
and students, which constitute the young population, are higher than that of other
groups’. This situation may have a positive effect on fish consumption in the
future.
The types of fish that are produced in Turkey are trout, sea bass, and gilt-head sea
bream, and the types that are most frequently caught are anchovy, Atlantic bonito,
and black spot sea bream, respectively. Anchovies, which are caught in the Black Sea
and the Marmara Sea, account for 52% (163.981 tons) of all fish types that are
caught in Turkey (Turkish Statitical Institute,
2011Turkish Statitical Institute – TURKSTAT (2011). Agriculture,
Fisheries statistics (213 p., Turkey’s Statistical Yearbook). Ankara, Turkey:
TURKSTAT.). It is envisaged that the interest in the above mentioned fish
types will continue in the coming years, as well. Other studies conducted in Turkey
have also revealed that anchovies are the most frequently consumed type of fish in
Turkey (Erdal & Esengün, 2008Erdal, G., & Esengün, K. (2008). The analysis of the factors
affecting fish consumption in Tokat Province by logit model, E.U. Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 25, 203-209.; Karakaş, 2010Karakaş, G. (2010). A research on the determination of factors
affecting of consumer decisions on meat and meat products in urban area of Tokat
province (Master’s Thesis). Gaziosmanpasa University, Institute of Life
Sciences, Turkey.; Kızılaslan & Nalıncı, 2013Kızılaslan, H., & Nalıncı, S. (2013). The fish meat consumption
habits of households and the factors affecting their fish meat consumption in
the province of amasya. Gaziosmanpaşa Bilimsel Araştırma Dergisi, 5,
61-75.; Oğuzhan et al., 2009Oğuzhan, P., Angiş, S., & Atamanalp, M. (2009). A research on
the habits fish products consumption of consumers determination in Erzurum. In
Proceedings of the XV. National Fisheries Symposium, Rize,
Turkey.). A study conducted on Asian Americans
revealed that the most frequently consumed types of fish are salmon and tuna, and
the most frequently consumed type of seafood is shellfish. Furthermore, this study
on Asian Americans also revealed that more than 75% of the participants consumed
shrimp and crab on regular basis (Sechena et al.,
2003Sechena, R., Liao, S., Lorenzana, R., Nakano, C., Polissar, N.,
& Fenske, R. (2003). Asian American and Pacific Islander seafood consumption
— a community-based study in King County, Washington. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 13(4), 256-266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500274. PMid:12923552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500274...
).
The season and frequency of fish consumption are other important issues. Fifty-one
percent of the participants in the current study consume fish throughout the year
(Table 3). Erdal & Esengün (2008)Erdal, G., & Esengün, K. (2008). The analysis of the factors
affecting fish consumption in Tokat Province by logit model, E.U. Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 25, 203-209. indicated that fish consumption
particularly increases during the winter. In our opinion, consuming fish throughout
the year is better for a balanced and healthy diet. Forty-eight percent of the
participants in this study stated that they consume fish once a month, and 27% said
they consume fish once a week. The ratio of participants who consume fish more than
once a week is only 3% (Table 3). A study
carried out by Çolakoğlu et al. (2006)Çolakoğlu, F. A., İşmen, A., Özen, Ö., Çakır, F., Yığın, Ç., &
Ormancı, H. B. (2006). The evaluation of fish consumption in Çanakkale, E.U.
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 23(3), 387-392. in
Turkey revealed that 46% of consumers eat fish at least once a week. In the United
States, the ratio of people who consume seafood regularly or frequently (once or
more than once a week) is 46%, the ratio of those who consume fish a couple of times
a month is 29%, and the ratio of those who consume fish at least once a month or
less frequently is 25% (Hicks et al., 2008Hicks, D., Pivarnik, L., & McDermott, R. (2008). Consumer
perceptions about seafood –an internet survey. Journal of Foodservice, 19(4),
213-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00107.x.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.20...
).
It was also found that twenty-five percent of the consumers in Belgium, Denmark, and
the Netherlands, and 75% of the consumers in Spain consume fish at least twice a
week (Pieniak et al., 2008Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F., Brunsø, K., & De
Henauw, S. (2008). Fish consumption and its motives in households with versus
without self-reported medical history of CVD: a consumer survey from five
European countries. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-306. PMid:18783593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-30...
).
It is known that education and income levels might have an effect on fish consumption
(Burger et al., 1999Burger, J., Stephens, W. L., Jr., Boring, C. S., Kuklinski, M.,
Gibbons, J. W., & Gochfeld, M. (1999). Factors in exposure assessment:
ethnic and socioeconomic differences in fishing and consumption of fish caught
along the Savannah River. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 427-438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00418.x.
PMid:10765415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.19...
; Hicks et al., 2008Hicks, D., Pivarnik, L., & McDermott, R. (2008). Consumer
perceptions about seafood –an internet survey. Journal of Foodservice, 19(4),
213-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00107.x.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.20...
). In the present study, a
meaningful relationship was found between education and consumption level and
frequency (Table 5). Myrland et al. (2000)Myrland, O., Trondsen, T., Johnston, R. S., & Lund, E. (2000).
Determinants of seafood consumption in Norway: lifestyle, revealed preferences,
and barriers to consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 11(3), 169-188.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00034-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)...
stated that university graduates consume
more fish compared to others. A study conducted in France revealed that individuals
who have a Bachelor’s degree are more interested in fish-based diets (Barberger-Gateau et al., 2002Barberger-Gateau, P., Letenneur, L., Deschamps, V., Pérès, K.,
Dartigues, J. F., & Renaud, S. (2002). Fish, meat, and risk of dementia:
cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 325, 932-933.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.932. PMid:12399342
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.9...
). A study
conducted in the United States revealed, however, that there is an inverse relation
between fish consumption and education and income levels, which does not correspond
to the general literature reviews (Burger et al.,
1999Burger, J., Stephens, W. L., Jr., Boring, C. S., Kuklinski, M.,
Gibbons, J. W., & Gochfeld, M. (1999). Factors in exposure assessment:
ethnic and socioeconomic differences in fishing and consumption of fish caught
along the Savannah River. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 427-438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00418.x.
PMid:10765415
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.19...
). Çolakoğlu et al. (2006)Çolakoğlu, F. A., İşmen, A., Özen, Ö., Çakır, F., Yığın, Ç., &
Ormancı, H. B. (2006). The evaluation of fish consumption in Çanakkale, E.U.
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 23(3), 387-392.
stated that there is no association between education level and fish consumption and
frequency, but unlike the outcome of the present study, there is a meaningful
relationship between income level and fish consumption. Verbeke & Vackier (2005)Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of
fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite,
44(1), 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006.
PMid:15604034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.0...
mentioned that people with lower
income and in the younger age groups tend to consume less fish, but there is no
meaningful relationship between education and fish consumption frequency. Sechena et al. (2003)Sechena, R., Liao, S., Lorenzana, R., Nakano, C., Polissar, N.,
& Fenske, R. (2003). Asian American and Pacific Islander seafood consumption
— a community-based study in King County, Washington. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 13(4), 256-266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500274. PMid:12923552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500274...
stated there is no
significant difference between men and women or among different age groups; however,
Sarıözkan et al. (2007)Sarıözkan, S., Cevger, Y., Demir, P., & Aral, Y. (2007). The
consumption situation and habits of livestock products among the students of
Erciyes University Veterinary Faculty. Journal of Health Science, 16(3),
171-179. claimed that
women consume more fish than men. We found a significant difference in consumption
between people of different genders and age groups. It was found that only a small
proportion of variance was explained by our model. The model can be better explained
by including other demographic factors which were not considered in the present
study. Also logistic regression model may be more informative to explain fish
consumption preferences. Further comprehensive studies are needed to estimate the
influence of socio-economic and demographic determinants of fish consumption.
Compared to other types of food, fish may be considered expensive by consumers (Pieniak et al., 2008Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F., Brunsø, K., & De
Henauw, S. (2008). Fish consumption and its motives in households with versus
without self-reported medical history of CVD: a consumer survey from five
European countries. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-306. PMid:18783593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-30...
). In Turkey eating fish
is misinterpreted as a luxury and that it only contributes to 3% of the amount
needed to correct protein deficiency (Aydın et al.,
2011Aydın, H., Dilek, M. K., & Aydın, K. (2011). Trends in fish and
fishery products consumption in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 11(3), 499-506.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.0318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.03...
). According to a study conducted in Amasya, Turkey, 60% of fish
consumers find the prices affordable and 30% find the prices high (Kızılaslan & Nalıncı, 2013Kızılaslan, H., & Nalıncı, S. (2013). The fish meat consumption
habits of households and the factors affecting their fish meat consumption in
the province of amasya. Gaziosmanpaşa Bilimsel Araştırma Dergisi, 5,
61-75.). In the
present study, a significant relationship between fish consumption level and income
was detected (Table 6). Although price of
fish is important and it is considered as expensive by 52% of the respondents (Figure 1), consumption cannot be increased by
production or price policies alone. In our opinion, the most important reason is the
fact that fish consumption habits are closely related to the cultural and geographic
variables. It should also be noted that the income and price elasticity of the
demand for fish is low (<1) in Turkey (Hatırlı
et al., 2007Hatırlı, S. A., Öztürk, E., & Aktaş, A. R. (2007). An analysis
of demand of red meat, fish and chicken using full demand system approach.
Journal of Suleyman Demirel University Institue of Social Sciences, 6,
211-221.; Akbay et al.,
2008Akbay, C., Bilgiç, A., & Miran, B. (2008). Demand estimation for
basic food products in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 14(2),
55-65.). On the other hand, 38% of the consumers believe that fish consumption
can be increased through social awareness. The results of the Fisher's exact
Chi-square analysis indicated that there was a significant relationship between
income class and “preferred type of fish”. It is understood that consumption of
cultivated fish significantly increases with income (Table 4).
Freshness is another important factor affecting fish consumption. Nearly all of the
participants in the present study (98%) preferred fresh fish to processed fish.
Although the majority of consumers claimed that they evaluate the quality of fish
and seafood according to their freshness (Bose
& Brown, 2000Bose, S., & Brown, N. (2000). A preliminary investigation of
factor affecting seafood consumption behavior in the inland and coastal regions
of Victoria, Australia. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 24(4),
257-262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2000.00157.x.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.20...
); nevertheless, it is known that it is difficult for
consumers to make such an evaluation (Hicks et al.,
2008Hicks, D., Pivarnik, L., & McDermott, R. (2008). Consumer
perceptions about seafood –an internet survey. Journal of Foodservice, 19(4),
213-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00107.x.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.20...
). The use of “quality assurance programs” can bring significant
benefits to the industry and consumers (Bose &
Brown, 2000Bose, S., & Brown, N. (2000). A preliminary investigation of
factor affecting seafood consumption behavior in the inland and coastal regions
of Victoria, Australia. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 24(4),
257-262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2000.00157.x.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.20...
). Other important factors affecting fish consumption are fish
bones, smell, and taste (Pieniak et al.,
2008Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F., Brunsø, K., & De
Henauw, S. (2008). Fish consumption and its motives in households with versus
without self-reported medical history of CVD: a consumer survey from five
European countries. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-306. PMid:18783593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-30...
). Consumers’ perception of the smell of fish, fish bones, and fish
price is not as positive as their perception of its health benefits (Verbeke & Vackier, 2005Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of
fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite,
44(1), 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006.
PMid:15604034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.0...
). Leek et al. (2000)Leek, S., Maddock, S., & Foxall, G. (2000). Situational
determinants of fish consumption. British Food Journal, 102(1), 18-39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700010310614.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700010310...
stated that fish bones are
one of the most important factors reducing consumption frequency, and they added
that fish bones cause problems in cooking and preparation.
Today, the main objective of campaigns addressed to the public is to change
consumption behaviors and habits and encourage people to consume healthier foods
(Honkanen et al., 2005Honkanen, P., Olsen, S. O., & Verplanken, B. (2005). Intention
to consume seafood—the importance of habit. Appetite, 45(2), 161-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.04.005. PMid:16011859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.0...
). Emphasis is
placed on the positive association between consumers’ awareness of healthy food
consumption and fish consumption habits (Verbeke
& Vackier, 2005Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of
fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite,
44(1), 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006.
PMid:15604034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.0...
). Hicks et al.
(2008)Hicks, D., Pivarnik, L., & McDermott, R. (2008). Consumer
perceptions about seafood –an internet survey. Journal of Foodservice, 19(4),
213-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00107.x.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.20...
mentioned that pregnant women may have concerns about the
consumption of seafood. Studies conducted in various European countries have
revealed that although all consumers find fish healthy and nutritious, some may
perceive that some types of fatty fish that contain omega-3 fatty acids are
unhealthy and high in calories (Pieniak et al.,
2008Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F., Brunsø, K., & De
Henauw, S. (2008). Fish consumption and its motives in households with versus
without self-reported medical history of CVD: a consumer survey from five
European countries. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-306. PMid:18783593
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-30...
). The majority of the participants in the present study (62%)
consume fish to stay healthy and have a balanced diet (Table 3). The significant relationship between educational
level and “the reason why consumers prefer fish” also corroborates this finding
(Table 4). Furthermore, the preferred
method of preparation is oven baking, which can be related to consumers’ desire to
consume fish in a health way (Table 3).
According to the Chi-square test, it can be said that healthy reasons play an
important role in the consumption decision, especially among those with higher
levels of education (Table 4).
Çolakoğlu et al. (2006)Çolakoğlu, F. A., İşmen, A., Özen, Ö., Çakır, F., Yığın, Ç., &
Ormancı, H. B. (2006). The evaluation of fish consumption in Çanakkale, E.U.
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 23(3), 387-392. stated that fish is
most frequently purchased from wholesale fish markets and supermarkets,
respectively. A study carried out in the United States revealed that seafood is
purchased most frequently from supermarkets, street sellers, and restaurants (Sechena et al., 2003Sechena, R., Liao, S., Lorenzana, R., Nakano, C., Polissar, N.,
& Fenske, R. (2003). Asian American and Pacific Islander seafood consumption
— a community-based study in King County, Washington. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 13(4), 256-266.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500274. PMid:12923552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500274...
). In the current study,
it was found that fish is most frequently purchased from fish markets (80%) and
supermarkets. A significant number of the consumers indicated that the greatest
problem in retail fish markets is hygiene deficiencies (Figure 1), and they believe that the Ministry of Food,
Agriculture, and Livestock should increase the number of routine audits.
It has been claimed that in order to increase consumption, the health benefits of
eating fish and fishery products should be better explained by the fishing industry
(Aydın et al., 2011Aydın, H., Dilek, M. K., & Aydın, K. (2011). Trends in fish and
fishery products consumption in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 11(3), 499-506.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.0318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.03...
). It is thought that
a lack of advertisement campaigns to increase consumers’ awareness and attract their
attention might have had a negative impact on fish consumption. It can be said that
organizational structure problems such as, storing, stocking, and transportation in
the fishing industry also adversely affect the consumption indirectly (Can et al., 2012Can, M. F., Serpin, D., & Can, M. F. (2012). The current
situation of small scale fisheries in İskenderun Bay: İskenderun, Arsuz and
Konacik. Atatürk University Journal of Veterinary Science, 7(3),
167-175.).
4 Conclusion
Although academicians, media, and public institutions often mention the association between fish consumption and health, it has been revealed that fish consumption in Antakya is far below the average consumption in Turkey and in the world. Another important issue that is as important as the level of consumption is the frequency of consumption. Fish consumption should not be increased within certain months only, but rather be distributed equally throughout the year. Because of the existing traditional eating habits, low price and demand elasticity for purchasing fish, and some structural problems in the fishing industry, a remarkable increase in fish consumption should not be expected in the near future. Government agencies, private sector, and occupational organizations can play an active role in changing consumption habits and preferences of consumers. In conclusion, priority should be given to training and mass advertising campaigns with the goal of increasing consumption and improving hygiene standards in the fish supply chain.
-
Pratica Application: Decision support for policy makers regarding fish consumption preferences.
References
- Agha, S. R., & Alnahhal, M. J. (2012). Neural network and multiple linear regression to predict school children dimensions for ergonomic school furniture design. Applied Ergonomics, 43(6), 979-984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.01.007. PMid:22365329
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.01.007 - Akbay, C., Bilgiç, A., & Miran, B. (2008). Demand estimation for basic food products in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 14(2), 55-65.
- Aydın, H., Dilek, M. K., & Aydın, K. (2011). Trends in fish and fishery products consumption in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 11(3), 499-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.0318.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.4194/trjfas.2011.0318 - Barberger-Gateau, P., Letenneur, L., Deschamps, V., Pérès, K., Dartigues, J. F., & Renaud, S. (2002). Fish, meat, and risk of dementia: cohort study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 325, 932-933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.932. PMid:12399342
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.932 - Bose, S., & Brown, N. (2000). A preliminary investigation of factor affecting seafood consumption behavior in the inland and coastal regions of Victoria, Australia. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 24(4), 257-262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2000.00157.x.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2000.00157.x - Burger, J., Stephens, W. L., Jr., Boring, C. S., Kuklinski, M., Gibbons, J. W., & Gochfeld, M. (1999). Factors in exposure assessment: ethnic and socioeconomic differences in fishing and consumption of fish caught along the Savannah River. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 427-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00418.x. PMid:10765415
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00418.x - Can, M. F. (2014). A socio-economic analysis of small ruminant breeders’ membership relations and organizational effectiveness. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 61, 119-124.
- Can, M. F., & Altuğ, N. (2014). Socioeconomic implications of biosecurity practices in small-scale dairy farms. The Veterinary Quarterly, 34(2), 67-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2014.951130. PMid:25174643
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2014.951130 - Can, M. F., Serpin, D., & Can, M. F. (2012). The current situation of small scale fisheries in İskenderun Bay: İskenderun, Arsuz and Konacik. Atatürk University Journal of Veterinary Science, 7(3), 167-175.
- Cevger, Y., Aral, Y., Demir, P., & Sarıözkan, S. (2008). The situation of animal products consumption and consumer preferences among intern students at the Ankara University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 55, 189-194.
- Çolakoğlu, F. A., İşmen, A., Özen, Ö., Çakır, F., Yığın, Ç., & Ormancı, H. B. (2006). The evaluation of fish consumption in Çanakkale, E.U. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 23(3), 387-392.
- Doğruel, F., & Leman, J. (2009). ‘Conduct’ and ‘Counter-conduct’ on the southern border of Turkey: Multicultural Antakya. Middle Eastern Studies, 45(4), 593-610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00263200903009650.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00263200903009650 - Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1998). Selecting the “Best” Regression Equation. In N. R. Draper & H. Smith, Applied Regression Analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118625590.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118625590 - Erdal, G., & Esengün, K. (2008). The analysis of the factors affecting fish consumption in Tokat Province by logit model, E.U. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 25, 203-209.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – FAO (2013, Jun 14). Statistical databases. Retrieved from http://faostat3.fao.org
» http://faostat3.fao.org - Hatırlı, S. A., Öztürk, E., & Aktaş, A. R. (2007). An analysis of demand of red meat, fish and chicken using full demand system approach. Journal of Suleyman Demirel University Institue of Social Sciences, 6, 211-221.
- Hicks, D., Pivarnik, L., & McDermott, R. (2008). Consumer perceptions about seafood –an internet survey. Journal of Foodservice, 19(4), 213-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00107.x.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0159.2008.00107.x - Honkanen, P., Olsen, S. O., & Verplanken, B. (2005). Intention to consume seafood—the importance of habit. Appetite, 45(2), 161-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.04.005. PMid:16011859
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.04.005 - Karakaş, G. (2010). A research on the determination of factors affecting of consumer decisions on meat and meat products in urban area of Tokat province (Master’s Thesis). Gaziosmanpasa University, Institute of Life Sciences, Turkey.
- Karakuş, K., Aygün, T., & Alarslan, E. (2008). Consumption habits of meat in center town of Gaziantep Province. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(2), 113-120.
- Kızılaslan, H., & Nalıncı, S. (2013). The fish meat consumption habits of households and the factors affecting their fish meat consumption in the province of amasya. Gaziosmanpaşa Bilimsel Araştırma Dergisi, 5, 61-75.
- Leek, S., Maddock, S., & Foxall, G. (2000). Situational determinants of fish consumption. British Food Journal, 102(1), 18-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700010310614.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700010310614 - McNaughton, S. A., Ball, K., Mishra, G. D., & Crawford, D. A. (2008). Dietary patterns of adolescents and risk of obesity and hypertension. The Journal of Nutrition, 138(2), 364-370. PMid:18203905.
- Myrland, O., Trondsen, T., Johnston, R. S., & Lund, E. (2000). Determinants of seafood consumption in Norway: lifestyle, revealed preferences, and barriers to consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 11(3), 169-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00034-8.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00034-8 - Oğuzhan, P., Angiş, S., & Atamanalp, M. (2009). A research on the habits fish products consumption of consumers determination in Erzurum. In Proceedings of the XV. National Fisheries Symposium, Rize, Turkey.
- Ören, K., & Biçkes, M. (2011). Effects of personality traits on entrepreneurship potential: A study on higher education students in Nevşehir. The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 16(3), 67-86.
- Pieniak, Z., Kołodziejczyk, M., Kowrygo, B., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Consumption patterns and labelling of fish and fishery products in Poland after the EU accession. Food Control, 22(6), 843-850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.09.022.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.09.022 - Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Perez-Cueto, F., Brunsø, K., & De Henauw, S. (2008). Fish consumption and its motives in households with versus without self-reported medical history of CVD: a consumer survey from five European countries. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-306. PMid:18783593
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-306 - Qiu, Y., Fu, B., Wang, J., Chen, L., Meng, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2010). Spatial prediction of soil moisture content using multiple-linear regressions in a gully catchment of the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(2), 208-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.08.003.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.08.003 - Rodriguez del Águila, M. M., & González-Ramírez, A. R. (2013). Sample size calculation. Allergologia et immunopathologia, 42(5), 485-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aller.2013.03.008.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aller.2013.03.008 - Sarıözkan, S., Cevger, Y., Demir, P., & Aral, Y. (2007). The consumption situation and habits of livestock products among the students of Erciyes University Veterinary Faculty. Journal of Health Science, 16(3), 171-179.
- Sechena, R., Liao, S., Lorenzana, R., Nakano, C., Polissar, N., & Fenske, R. (2003). Asian American and Pacific Islander seafood consumption — a community-based study in King County, Washington. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 13(4), 256-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500274. PMid:12923552
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500274 - Şeker, İ., Özen, A., Güler, H., Şeker, P., & Özden, İ. (2011). Red meat consumption behavior in Elazığ and consumers’ opinion in animal welfare summary. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi, 17(4), 543-550.
- Turan, H., Kaya, Y., & Sönmez, G. (2006). Position in human health and food value of fish meat. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 23, 505-508.
- Turkish Statitical Institute – TURKSTAT (2011). Agriculture, Fisheries statistics (213 p., Turkey’s Statistical Yearbook). Ankara, Turkey: TURKSTAT.
- Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of fish consumption: application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 44(1), 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006. PMid:15604034
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.08.006 - Verbeke, W., & Viaene, J. (1999). Beliefs, attitude and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey. Food Quality and Preference, 10(6), 437-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
June 2015
History
-
Received
21 Jan 2015 -
Accepted
19 Mar 2015